• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Noam Chomsky Says GOP is the ‘Most Dangerous Organization in World History’

Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
624
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/15/noam-chomsky-gop-most-dangerous-organization-world-history.html


Surely this is hyperbole, many will say. Chomsky admits “The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it?”
“The facts,” he says, “suggest otherwise. The party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to [the] destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand.” He asks people to “consider what we have just been witnessing.”
Think about it: awful as Hitler and the Nazi Party were, the German leader did not have the power to destroy all human life even had he wished. Nuclear weapons aside, the Donald Trump and the GOP do. Because, as Chomsky says, the second important event to take place on November 8 was a WMO report that stated that the last five years have been the hottest on record (we have since seen 2016 is on track to be the new hottest year).

I can't see how he's entirely wrong. Not even ISIS has the power to make the entire globe less inhabitable.
 
Most evil and uncaring for those it wishes to rule over too. But they are not real Republicans, they have not been for roughly 36 years. They are republickers in every obvious and foul meaning of that term.
 
How about the Communist Party of the USSR? They killed tens of millions between the revolution and the end of the Stalin era, and even though the Khrushchev thaw improved things, they were still far from good. They also oppressed the Eastern half of Central Europe and had the power to destroy the world many times over.

Oh, it's Chomsky. Naturally, the Soviet commies were actually nice guys, sorry.
 
He's an old dude that Chomsky is. He must have a trail of blood a mile long with some of the dirty old commie regimes he defended. Now I don't know this. I am just assuming this to be true. I may in fact be wrong... but I'm to lazy to research the point.
 
Someone send up a flare to the rest of the conservative community. "Hey, You Guys! We got a Chomsky statement over on aisle three."

(Nothing to bring out the reactionary squad like a Chomsky comment! Well, nothing this side of a Skeptic Ginger thread, that is.)
 
Chomsky makes a heap of stupid comments. Eventually one will be right. Alas, not this one.
 
Here's a link to the actual interview.

http://www.ecowatch.com/noam-chomsky-trump-2093271018.html

I'm curious about this statement. Rapid increases? How true is it?

The winning candidate, now the president-elect, calls for rapid increase in use of fossil fuels, including coal; dismantling of regulations; rejection of help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and in general, racing to the cliff as fast as possible.
 
Here's a link to the actual interview.

http://www.ecowatch.com/noam-chomsky-trump-2093271018.html

I'm curious about this statement. Rapid increases? How true is it?

Trump has made promises to coal miners that he'd put them back to work. Now I suppose that this could mean that US-sourced coal would replace imported coal but as US coal exports (14.7m tons Q1 2016) far exceed imports (2.7m tons Q1 2016) there may not be that much scope for increase. Imports are around 1-2% of total US production.

http://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/how-much-coal-does-us-export-and-import

Of course he could put them back to work just to mine coal just for the hell of it and not actually burn it - but that makes no sense.

IMO anything else relies on an increase in coal consumption either at home and/or abroad so on that measure, if Trump is to be believed and he does want to put coalminers back to work, it would require a sharp increase in consumption.

That said, Trump's promise could be empty, but because of economic factors...

Few doubt the Trump administration will move swiftly to unravel environmental rules that are wildly unpopular across the fossil fuel industry, allowing a dangerous rise in greenhouse gas emissions. But observers say no amount of regulatory rollbacks can bring the coal sector roaring back at this point.

That’s because regulations aren’t the industry’s real problem—market forces are. Coal’s true rival is cheap natural gas, which was freed in soaring volumes during the last decade through fracking. Coal’s economics meant it simply couldn’t compete.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602853/trumps-empty-promise-to-coal-country/
 
Trump has made promises to coal miners that he'd put them back to work. Now I suppose that this could mean that US-sourced coal would replace imported coal but as US coal exports (14.7m tons Q1 2016) far exceed imports (2.7m tons Q1 2016) there may not be that much scope for increase. Imports are around 1-2% of total US production.

Forgive my off-topic ignorance, but why would we export 14.7m tons of coal, and then turn around an import 2.7?

Why not just export 12m and save the extra?
 
Forgive my off-topic ignorance, but why would we export 14.7m tons of coal, and then turn around an import 2.7?

Why not just export 12m and save the extra?

Reasons could include:

  • Export coal of Type A (of which there is a local surplus) import coal of Type B
  • Long term commitments to export coal, coal imports to cover short term shortages
  • Geographic convenience, it may be cheaper to import coal than ship it internally
 
Someone send up a flare to the rest of the conservative community. "Hey, You Guys! We got a Chomsky statement over on aisle three."

(Nothing to bring out the reactionary squad like a Chomsky comment! Well, nothing this side of a Skeptic Ginger thread, that is.)
:D

OK, let's parse this thing. First off, 'most dangerous ever', well a bit of hyperbole but his concerns are valid.

by tapping successfully into the anger of white voters and appealing to the lowest inclinations of people in a manner that would have probably impressed Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels himself
That to me is one of the most worrisome things, how successful they were at fake news and dog whistles. Trump is putting a bunch of billionaires in power, how is that helpful to his base?

Some years ago, public intellectual Noam Chomsky warned that the political climate in the U.S. was ripe for the rise of an authoritarian figure. Now, he shares his thoughts on the aftermath of this election, the moribund state of the U.S. political system and why Trump is a real threat to the world and the planet in general.
That prediction was certainly validated.

Chomsky's concerned about a setback in addressing global warming. That's a given.

The outcome placed total control of the government—executive, Congress, the Supreme Court—in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.
That's like a runaway train. The best we can hope for is a power split among the GOP legislators but the way the leaders like McConnell and Ryan are kissing ass, that's not a good sign.

This may seem like a good thing to the right wingers in this forum:
"Contrary to president-elect Donald Trump's populist message during his campaign, Trump is trying to stack his administration with industry executives and fossil fuel barons who will make life worse for everyone but themselves," Greenpeace USA climate liability attorney Naomi Ages said. "These people will undoubtedly advocate for corporate interests that benefit only those at the top and continue to leave the rest of us behind, including the working class.

"'Environmental protection' will take backseat to 'corporate protection' with Myron Ebell as head of the EPA, 'drill, baby, drill' will ring across this country with Sarah Palin in the Interior Department, and Harold Hamm's oil would flow through the Dakota Access Pipeline and so many others if he were Energy Secretary."
Looks like a disaster to me.


Chomsky is looking at the planet, not just the US when he speaks of the danger Trump poses:
In Bangladesh alone, tens of millions are expected to have to flee from low-lying plains in coming years because of sea level rise and more severe weather, creating a migrant crisis that will make today's pale in significance. With considerable justice, Bangladesh's leading climate scientist said that "These migrants should have the right to move to the countries from which all these greenhouse gases are coming. Millions should be able to go to the United States." And to the other rich countries that have grown wealthy while bringing about a new geological era, the Anthropocene, marked by radical human transformation of the environment. These catastrophic consequences can only increase, not just in Bangladesh, but in all of South Asia as temperatures, already intolerable for the poor, inexorably rise and the Himalayan glaciers melt, threatening the entire water supply. Already in India, some 300 million people are reported to lack adequate drinking water. And the effects will reach far beyond.
 
Last edited:
not really, it is all just the same one thing: 'MURICA BAD!

No, it is not. It's saying Trump may dismantle environmental regulations (we've seen that before and it isn't pretty) and disregard science and global warming. Besides increasing oil and coal use in this country, it's uncertain what he'll push for regarding defunding research.

Will Trump slash public funding for scientific research? - Maybe, maybe not

Trump takes aim at NASA's climate budget

Politicizing climate change: Donald Trump’s budget could cut climate funding for NASA, other federal departments

[Yale] Faculty uneasy about federal funding under Trump
 
This answers the question "where do you go when you've already compared the republican candidate to hitler? "
 
Forgive my off-topic ignorance, but why would we export 14.7m tons of coal, and then turn around an import 2.7?

Why not just export 12m and save the extra?

Reasons could include:

  • Export coal of Type A (of which there is a local surplus) import coal of Type B
  • Long term commitments to export coal, coal imports to cover short term shortages
  • Geographic convenience, it may be cheaper to import coal than ship it internally
And we're not a planned economy. Individual sellers make different choices for a variety of reasons.
 
No, it is not. It's saying Trump may dismantle environmental regulations (we've seen that before and it isn't pretty) and disregard science and global warming. Besides increasing oil and coal use in this country, it's uncertain what he'll push for regarding defunding research.

This.

And it's not just Trump. The GOP has become extremely friendly with the fossil fuel industry-- especially these past 8 years. Anyone unaware of this just hasn't been paying attention. And anyone unaware of the importance of urgent action just hasn't been paying attention.

It is not hyperbole. It sounds like it is. But it's not. Humanity has fewer and fewer opportunities to avoid a very real potential for catastrophe unlike any in human history. And the GOP in the US has been by far the strongest barrier in preventing catastrophe. They are now well poised to reverse enough previous progress and gain enough political inertia that the world will effectively be locked out of any reasonable emission reduction scenario. It all depends on what Trump and the GOP actually do. If their actions match their rhetoric, there will be considerably more blood on their hands than is already. Acknowledging such isn't hyperbolic. It just sounds that way because the potential catastrophic impacts of unchecked global warming are so severe that they seem unrealistic to most reasonable people.
 
“The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it?”

Yes, Noam, it is.
 
No, it is not. It's saying Trump may dismantle environmental regulations (we've seen that before and it isn't pretty) and disregard science and global warming. Besides increasing oil and coal use in this country, it's uncertain what he'll push for regarding defunding research.

Will Trump slash public funding for scientific research? - Maybe, maybe not

Trump takes aim at NASA's climate budget

Politicizing climate change: Donald Trump’s budget could cut climate funding for NASA, other federal departments

[Yale] Faculty uneasy about federal funding under Trump


it is the primary reason I'm horrified by his election. but chomsky is a broken clock crying wolf'o'clock. I think he's probably secretly pleased at trump's election, just so he can be right for a change. it takes so much insight in this case...and for a linguist, he's remarkably incautious with his language...
 
Last edited:
The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. ~Oscar Wilde~

It appears that Noam has people talking about him again. Jolly good show, Noam, don't let the world forget you.

For an alternate view on the GOP, try mine:

They've been trying to self destruct since about 2006, are a house divided, which is why Trump was able to brush aside all of the GOP hopefuls in the primary. The GOP, as I see it, is about to do to themselves what the Whigs did in the mid 1800s. All Trump's success at what he just pulled off shows me is that they are progressing to self destruction on schedule.
 
Last edited:
The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. ~Oscar Wilde~

It appears that Noam has people talking about him again. Jolly good show, Noam, don't let the world forget you.

For an alternate view on the GOP, try mine:

They've been trying to self destruct since about 2006, are a house divided, which is why Trump was able to brush aside all of the GOP hopefuls in the primary. The GOP, as I see it, is about to do to themselves what the Whigs did in the mid 1800s. All Trump's success at what he just pulled off shows me is that they are progressing to self destruction on schedule.

The problem is not GOP self destruction but the collateral damage this could potentially cause...
 
The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. ~Oscar Wilde~

It appears that Noam has people talking about him again. Jolly good show, Noam, don't let the world forget you.

For an alternate view on the GOP, try mine:

They've been trying to self destruct since about 2006, are a house divided, which is why Trump was able to brush aside all of the GOP hopefuls in the primary. The GOP, as I see it, is about to do to themselves what the Whigs did in the mid 1800s. All Trump's success at what he just pulled off shows me is that they are progressing to self destruction on schedule.

LOL! That's certainly an "alternate" view. Yes, the Democrats have the Republicans set up for the knockout blow, what with the GOP only holding both houses of Congress, the White House, and 32 of 50 governor's mansions.
 
How about the Communist Party of the USSR? They killed tens of millions between the revolution and the end of the Stalin era, and even though the Khrushchev thaw improved things, they were still far from good. They also oppressed the Eastern half of Central Europe and had the power to destroy the world many times over.

Unfortunately this is small potatoes compared to the consequences of business as usual on CO2 emissions.
 
Unfortunately this is small potatoes compared to the consequences of business as usual on CO2 emissions.

Then the communist party of China. Killed millions of people, AND is now responsible for more CO2 emissions than anyone else.
 
Then the communist party of China. Killed millions of people, AND is now responsible for more CO2 emissions than anyone else.

Even if I ignore the fact the argument that “someone else is bad too!” is a stupid and childish argument, this post is still utter nonsense.

China’s per capita CO2 emissions are less than half of per capita emissions in the US, they produce more than twice as much emission free energy as the US, Their growth of emission free energy production is much higher that the US. In 2015 China accounted for 40% of ALL the wind, solar, biopower and small hydro installations around the world.


China does need to do more but the contrast with US Republicans is still pretty stark. They publically acknowledges the dangers of CO2 emissions and the science on climate change, have plan cap CO2 emissions and are making huge investments to meet that plan. In contrast US Republicans refuse to acknowledge the science, oppose policies to even cap CO2 emissions, actively oppose any investment of action to prevent climate change and actively promote the growth of high CO2 emission energy production.
 
This answers the question "where do you go when you've already compared the republican candidate to hitler? "

/thread


Next step: Resurrect resurrection and the sending of people to hell for torture for all eternity, with Trump pulling the levers.
 
Even if I ignore the fact the argument that “someone else is bad too!” is a stupid and childish argument, this post is still utter nonsense.

I didn't say they were also bad, I said they were worse. And given that the argument is precisely about who is the worst, that's completely on point.

China’s per capita CO2 emissions are less than half of per capita emissions in the US

So what? Their total emissions are still higher. So they're still doing more harm to the environment than the US. Your excuses for WHY they are doing more harm don't change the fact that they're doing more harm. Nor will that change any time soon.
 
I didn't say they were also bad, I said they were worse. And given that the argument is precisely about who is the worst, that's completely on point.



So what? Their total emissions are still higher. So they're still doing more harm to the environment than the US. Your excuses for WHY they are doing more harm don't change the fact that they're doing more harm. Nor will that change any time soon.

Per capita is a sensible way of looking at the problem. More people are naturally going to require more energy to sustain them. About the only purpose I see in making country-by-country totals as the basis of comparison is to engage in a nationalistic pissing contest.

Where in the post you replied to does the author offer 'excuses for WHY they are doing more harm'?

No such attempt to explain their reasoning was offered, at least not that I can see. What was stated was they have made more investments in clean energy than we have. "It does not follow" that pointing out disparities in clean energy investment would be remotely useful for excusing 'why' more harm has been done (again, in total, ignoring the 4x difference in population).
 
/thread


Next step: Resurrect resurrection and the sending of people to hell for torture for all eternity, with Trump pulling the levers.

What do you think this whole global warming apocalypse is? It's a secular version of hell. And carbon emissions are the sin that sends you there.
 
Re: emissions. My modest hope is that conservative leaders have children and grandchildren, and that all things being equal they too will be motivated to at least explore cleaner energy. A platform of minimizing damage might not be such a hard sell. Trump signaled this once; even energy companies want sustainable business models.
 
Re: emissions. My modest hope is that conservative leaders have children and grandchildren.

Rich can afford clean air if/when this kind of thing will be actually buyable. So... no.

You could as well postulate that criminals wont commit crimes just because inevitably some crimes will be commited on some criminals.

This is pure human nature: humans are entirely capable of making this planet worse place in name of profit. And rethuglican ideology (business can do nothing wrong, magical free market ant its even more magical invisible hand, tax cuts heals all ills of this world, any and all regulations baaad, global warming denial for ideological reasons etc etc etc) can only suppport this kind of degeneracy.
 
How about the Communist Party of the USSR? They killed tens of millions between the revolution and the end of the Stalin era, and even though the Khrushchev thaw improved things, they were still far from good. They also oppressed the Eastern half of Central Europe and had the power to destroy the world many times over.

They had the power to, but they also had the sense not to do it.
 
I didn't say they were also bad, I said they were worse. And given that the argument is precisely about who is the worst, that's completely on point.

"Worst" ≠ dangerous.
 
@Brainster

Let's talk again at the mid terms, and then in the next presidential elections. Voter turn out was down, overall, which appeared to help Trump this time.
 
Back
Top Bottom